Roman troops are too strong at the beginning.

I think Roman troops should be of a lesser quality in the beginning of the game. During the 1st Punic war Rome continued to send soldiers to Sicily and eventually removed Carthage, but it took 23 years and coming back from many set backs to do it. It isn't until the end of the 2nd Punic war that Rome starts to show military superiority over Carthage. In the 2nd Punic war Hannibal repeatedly defeats the Romans. His brothers Mago and Hadsrubal even defeated the Scipio brothers in Spain in 212 or 211. The major reason that Rome persevered through the 2nd Punic war was her ability to continue to raise new armies after defeats and to learn from those defeats. I wish the EB campaign would reflect this a little bit better. It would make the Romani more difficult to play until the Polybian Reform, which would be more historically accurate. Once Rome took Sicily and defeated Hannibal, she exploded with expansion both to the East and West.

Any thoughts?

Wow...is this a Roman overpowered thread I see?

EB has the best balance of any mod there is IMHO. The Roman units are far stronger in all other mods I've ever played. It's your choice though, of course, and so you can always edit unit stats in the export_descr_unit file.

Sir, if you had joied a couple months ago you would never want to post another "over powered/underpowered" thread EVER again.

OOh, another Floridian.:egypt:

Well I did just join the forums, although I have been playing EB for awhile.

I apologize for my ignorance, but acting like condescending Romans doesn't increase your E-reputation. If you don't want to respond, then don't.

One thing that strikes me from your opening post is the implication that the reforms should make the troops stronger, or better. This is not necessarily true: their main boon is logistical in nature, allowing recruitment of core troops over a wider area. You'll find that playing Rome in EB, a major problem at the start is expansion outside the Italian peninsula until reforms kick in. The troops are fine, but if the army suffers losses they'll have to be replaced in Roman heartlands, if you're playing with accurate armies. The Polybian reforms, partially triggered by expansion, alleviate this.

Hope this explains things a bit, Livius Andronicus.

As to other responses, why not keep things polite? Livius Andronicus asked a polite question and is new here. It took me less than a couple of minutes to type this, and if you can't even raise that effort then why bother posting in this topic? Doesn't give a good first impression to people who are possibly interested, does it?

I for one really don'te believe that the romans are overpowered... They were at the time already one of the strongest countries in the world and in EB they don't fare to well so.... :no:

One of the strongest countries in the world?

I don't think so.

Pyhrros all but defeated them, if it wasn't for his habit of getting distracted and charging off to start yet another war, he would have.

EDIT: on the whole I aggree with the OP, but not by very much.


Welcome to the org, and eb BTW. :sultan:

Enjoy you're stay here, I hope, and don't be put off by those boorish roman fanboys ~;)

You're first balloon :balloon3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anubis88

I for one really don'te believe that the romans are overpowered... They were at the time already one of the strongest countries in the world and in EB they don't fare to well so.... :no:

---

Every time there is a thread with "Rome" in it's title, someone will post nonsense like this :thumbsdown:

E-reputation?! :inquisitive:

In my opinion, some of the Roman troops are clownshoes ie hastati, rorarii and every cavalry they can recruit with the exception of equites extraordinarii.

Principes are pretty good, triarii are ok for what they do. It all depends on how good you are on the battlefield. I am damn awful, so they don't seem that overpowered to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Livius Andronicus

Any thoughts?

---

Please compare the early Romans with the early Makedonian, Karthage, Sweboz, Greek, or what ever you like. They have some fine average units but are defintily not the army with the high-end elites.

the Hastati certainly aren't overpowered, I'm not too sure about preCamillan (EDIT preCamillan? what like hoplites? what was I thinking? CAMILLAN) Principes because they got that +4 for spears thing that I haven't taken the time to explore the implications of.

But if you expect to take as long as the Romans did to take Sicily, you are ignoring or hoping to include two factors of which 1 is certainly impossible in the RTW engine, and the other will not happen unless a human player is playing Carthage and for some weird reason wants to lose in a historical fashion.

The first thing is that most of the Punic war was about controlling two things; naval control of the coast, which the Romans were new at and the Carthaginians seemed strangely reluctant to pursue. Witness how each time a Roman sailing noob lost the fleet in a storm, the war took years to recover. How come the Carthaginians didn't start dominating the coasts?

Secondly, the war was a guerilla action for the most part. Something the Romans were bad at in general, and Hasdrubal was brilliant at. The AI will either sit there and wait for you to destroy it, or it will attack your full legion with nothing very able. It's hard enough getting the AI to field a decent army without hoping for it to conduct a long campaign of hiding out in the hills and striking at your farms, supply route (neither of which are particularly vulnerable in the game engine) and your replacement troops before running away again to avoid a destructive encounter with your main forces.

So for the Romans- in game- you can take Sicily in 7 years without rushing and spend the next 13 years persuading the Carthies to accept a peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by horst nordfink

It all depends on how good you are on the battlefield. I am damn awful, so they don't seem that overpowered to me.

---

The same with me, I am absolutely crap at fighting battles, so Camillian Romans don't seem that strong to me.

I beg your pardon, but rome in 270 BC had the manpower to defeat Carthage! The Successors were the only ones that could compare themselves with Carthage at the time and rome beated carthage in a war that started 6 years later. I'm not saying that rome was the strongest one, just one of the strongest. Pyrhus attacked them but he was repelled. He had an extremly well equieped army but failed to brake Rome's rising power. They're resources were huge, that's why i consider them to be one of the top countries at the time.

P.S. I'm faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar from being a Rome fanboy:furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maeran

How come the Carthaginians didn't start dominating the coasts?

---

Probably because these are galleys we're talking about. The things have an awfully poor logistical endurance (eg. the need to provide the huge rowing gang with food and water, which the warship itself cannot carry as it needs to keep tonnage to a minimum...), and if you want them to stick to some region for any longer time you basically need a harbor or other base for them. Which, obviously, the Carthies had a somewhat difficult time wresting from the Romans.

Mediterranean naval strategy was always kind of peculiar thanks to that.

Quote:

---

As to other responses, why not keep things polite? Livius Andronicus asked a polite question and is new here. It took me less than a couple of minutes to type this, and if you can't even raise that effort then why bother posting in this topic? Doesn't give a good first impression to people who are possibly interested, does it?

---

You better not be talking about me.:chucks:

As for calling Rome one of the strongest nations in the world, I'd wait 'til 241 to say that.

after 241 they were practically unbeatable.

(don't mention hannibal becouse he doesn't count, since he was a genius and coud have defeated anything and anyone )

Seriusly, after 241 they haven't lost a major battle or failed an important campaign if you don't count the trouble that hannibal coused:book:

I don´t find the romanii overpowered. Specially after I fought against the KH and Makedonians.

The Romans ARE weak when the game starts, if you use historical legions. The hastati are little more than skirmishers with a shield. The principes are really nothing special, although they excel against cavalry most infantry units will inflict heavy casualties. The triarii are amazing, but they are experienced men dressed in Greek style armour and fighting as hoplites, they're supposed to be tough. Plus, if you play historically, you should have only 2 units in your armies at MOST, and shouldn't use them unless it is absolutely necessary. As for the Roman cavalry, Psh... I bring them along to act as router chasers, it's all they're good for.

The reason the early Romans seem so strong is because the AI is dumb even compared to a dumb human player. To the AI, a dumb human player is what Alexander the Great was to the known world... A serious threat you're just never going to beat. Unless of course the human is playing as Hayasdan, but that's another story.

Anyhow, take a look at Carthage's starting unit roster. Libyan spearmen and Poeni hoplites... Instantly better than Rome's best troops, the Triarii. Cheap but effective light infantry in large numbers, the Iberi Caetrati (i think) very manouvreable. Light skirmisher cavalry perfect for cutting down routers before they can reform and come back, medium cavalry that trumps anything the Romans can throw at you. Elephants.... Used correctly, enough said. A general with 3 stars of command. A starting position that will never be invaded except possibly by Ptolemies around 220BC.

A navy capable of blockading the exposed Roman ports since the Romans only start off with 1 single fleet or crappy boats.

Carthage is an absolute powerhouse to be feared in comparison to Rome at the start of the game. Why do we need not fear them? Because the AI are dumb. Theie navies will never touch your ports. Their 3-star general will get himself killed charging ahead of his army. The elephants will let your skirmishers cut them down before they touch your lines. Their Poeni hoplites will split up in battle and allow themselves to be surrounded. They won't expand into Syracuse, Messana or Rhegion.

If the AI was smart, as smart as the human player or almost as smart, the Romani would be destroyed outright by Carthage.

Rome isn't overpowered, the AI is just dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anubis88

after 241 they were practically unbeatable.

(don't mention hannibal becouse he doesn't count, since he was a genius and coud have defeated anything and anyone )

Seriusly, after 241 they haven't lost a major battle or failed an important campaign if you don't count the trouble that hannibal coused:book:

---

I am afraid the facts disagree. Roman armies were massacred many times after 241 (in adittion to Hannibal). Rome was not invincible. Its success was due to manpower, stubborn persistance, patriotism, a handful of great men and their armies, and their will to win. The Romans may lose a battle, but they would never lose a war.

I know... I think we actually agree, although it doesn't look like that.
My point was that rome isn't too strong at the begining. But i don't agree that roman troops where massacred after hannibal many times. During EB's timeframe I believe such battles include ONLY carrhae and teutoberg forest. And that's a long way up the campaign

Don't forget about the Battle of Arausio in 105 B.C. The Romans got their asses handed to them by the Cimbri and the Teutones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

...If the AI was smart, as smart as the human player or almost as smart, the Romani would be destroyed outright by Carthage...

---

Very good post. In game terms, Carthage was interested in developing its home cities at game start, building up trade and subduing rebs, wheras the Roman agenda was EXPAND: their political system required a steady stream of military victories and annexed territoires to keep the war prestige mill ticking over.

If Carthage had a landed/military oligarchy rather than a mercantile/landed aristocracy maybe they would have gone all "Roman" on the eastern Med. However it wasn't their style.

Carthage was a major regional player in 500 BC, when Rome was a cattle market on the Tiber. It wasn't their style to politically absorb entire regions, they preffered to sprinkle trading outposts and cream off the cash. Generally their wars were defensive/mercantile AFAIK, trying to push Greeks and others out of their trade areas. They hadn't expanded much in the 200+ years down to 270 BC, just clashed sharply with the Greeks over sea lanes and cities around Sicily, and the eastern Med. In the next 200 years Rome engulfed the entire Mediteranean basin and huge tracts of the hinterland.

Of course after their first war with the Romans, their adventure in Spain took a new turn: the Barcids seemed to have been building a land Empire there when the Romans came bullying to start the 2nd Punic war. So the Barcids in Spain were an exception to Carthage's usual style, and a direct response to Rome.

Aside from this the Carthaginian system was not built for aggressive conquest and intensive exploitation. They could field huge armies and mass impressive fleets for short periods. Hannibal built a dynamite force of mercs/proffesionals who fought for over a decade, once again he was the exception. Overall the Romans had the staying power and they made their victories stick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWFanatic

I am afraid the facts disagree. Roman armies were massacred many times after 241 (in adittion to Hannibal). Rome was not invincible. Its success was due to manpower, stubborn persistance, patriotism, a handful of great men and their armies, and their will to win. The Romans may lose a battle, but they would never lose a war.

---

Another fine and reasonable post.

Rome fronted up for war time and again. They were the Borg of the ancient world: their lumbering inf came forward and you could shoot them in the chest with a phaser and they'd fall, but the next wave...noooo!:wall:

But seriously, I think they are well balanced. The RTW engine is a decent battle sim and a decent campaign sim, and the EB crew has touched it up a treat. As the first reply says, you don't likee, you modee.

Samnites for the win!

OK EVERYONE needs to Re-Read the following two posts. :yes:

1-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

One thing that strikes me from your opening post is the implication that the reforms should make the troops stronger, or better. This is not necessarily true: their main boon is logistical in nature, allowing recruitment of core troops over a wider area. You'll find that playing Rome in EB, a major problem at the start is expansion outside the Italian peninsula until reforms kick in. The troops are fine, but if the army suffers losses they'll have to be replaced in Roman heartlands, if you're playing with accurate armies. The Polybian reforms, partially triggered by expansion, alleviate this.

Hope this explains things a bit, Livius Andronicus.
.....

---

2-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Probably because these are galleys we're talking about. The things have an awfully poor logistical endurance (eg. the need to provide the huge rowing gang with food and water, which the warship itself cannot carry as it needs to keep tonnage to a minimum...), and if you want them to stick to some region for any longer time you basically need a harbor or other base for them. Which, obviously, the Carthies had a somewhat difficult time wresting from the Romans.

Mediterranean naval strategy was always kind of peculiar thanks to that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Livius Andronicus

Well I did just join the forums, although I have been playing EB for awhile.

I apologize for my ignorance, but acting like condescending Romans doesn't increase your E-reputation. If you don't want to respond, then don't.

---

Sir, if you have joined months ago, you would've known never to start a flame war with flame war loving people.

Besides, Rome was a rising power in italy..who else was there to challange them other than Phyrus (SP?!?), who was already caught up in affairs in Greece.

Hmm, I’ve been thinking a bit about the balance for Rome myself lately, although I have drawn different conclusions.

First, I think it should be taken into account that the true conditions that existed during the starting period and particularly the second Punic war cannot be accurately represented in the RTW game engine no matter how brilliant the modders are.

We could argue endlessly about the history; however I think we should consider the nations and societies that Rome bordered, and the political, military and social conditions that existed within them. Rome was unique in that it had amazing economic power, huge manpower and a political and social system which was perfectly suited for expansion and war. In addition they were not directly bordered by powerful, highly expansionistic powers. As stated by Cyclops Carthaginian society was trade based. They were not primarily interested in expansion.

The other two societies that bordered Rome were the Gauls and Hellenic nations. The Gauls were not going to form into a highly organized nation (not a tribal confederacy), assemble a professional force and then invade Italy with the purpose of subjugating entire cultures. Even so they were a horrible terror feared by the Romans for centuries.

The Hellenistic nations (I’m over simplifying things, I know) were busy with each other (which is certainly represented in the game).

These factors (which I have done a horrible job of describing) are the reason I believe Rome became the greatest power in the region, not any innate military superiority.

In the game as Rome you start off with a very versatile and flexible force, however if you pit them up against any high quality force from any of the surrounding nations they will lose (that is excepting all tactical factors i.e. you have them fight head to head).

Your advantages are 1) You have no strong expansionistic neighbors 2) you are in an extremely fertile/economically wealthy area.

Thus you:

a) are in no danger of destruction
b) can expand at any pace you like
c) have plenty of time to build up your forces and your economy

This is why it is relatively easy to play as Rome. Transfer Rome to the starting position of say, Koinon Hellenon, and then see what would happen!

I have used both Koinon Hellenon and Epeiros to utterly destroy Rome. Roman military forces are excellent (perhaps my favorite) but objectively they are not as good as the military of Carthage, Epeiros, Makedonia, AS, Ptolemaioi and maybe others (these are the factions I have played as and fought).
I love Rome, both in game and in history, but they were in no way supermen, and they did not have an invincible military. There were many factors that contributed to their rise.

However they are not supermen in the game. They will lose to an equally powerful and well lead army from any other nation, all else being equal. This was true in history. However all things were almost never equal. And so to in the game; as the player I will always see to it that all things are never equal.

Ok, my badly worded rambling rant will now end. Welcome Livius Andronicus, I hope this discussion doesn’t chase you off.

One of the things I like about Rome's design is the fact that Reform units are not greatly different from their predecessors.

I'd also like to take the time to talk about something thats been on my mind over the past few months. That is the case of the Polybian reforms. I really don't know what role this particular historian and general played in the development of Rome's military force but I do know that his practical contribution was describing these certain changes (armor types, tactics, weapons, organanization). Somehow I keep thinking that, from a historical perspective using the term for the reform is appropriate. Yet it appears innaccurate in the sense that it is misnamed. The Romani Polybius was describing were from his own time of writing ( after 146 BC). In the time frame of when the reforms are possible it seems that they are meant to reflect changes taking place when the gens Scipiones were making a name for themselves. In other ways it matters less because it happened to be a long run process.

Livius Andronicus, I wish to say that any and every faction can be overpowered or underpowered depending on what skill you have as a player to handle its challenges. The Romani are neither overpowered, nor underpowered. I have come close to defeat many times before the enemy routed first, by a hair. I have actually had to refight battles because if I had played it out to the end I would have lost the entire legion, or more than half of it. They are most certainly not overpowered, not if they are faced with determined opponents, like that fullstack and a half of Arverni I fought as the Romani who came at me with 8 Gaesatae and no unit less than 2 chevrons against my completely green and newly-recruited legion. And at the same time I have won battles with the same inexperienced legions with a single line charge well-coordinated enough that they crumpled the flanks even as the fronts and rears caved in. Anything is possible, the challenges can be met with practice.

As to why you are on the brink of getting hammered (you aren't yet because we're making the allowance that you're new, if you want to see hammering, go read Rycalawre's threads, now that's hammering) is because you haven't been reading the older threads in the forum and immersing yourself in the culture. It's always wiser to send in your agents to illuminate unfamiliar territory before moving in, get what i mean? When I first came across the RTW forums (not even EB yet) I spent two months just reading threads daily before even registering myself and commenting on the faction threads.

If you would just see the sheer amount of this overpowered, that underpowered, sometimes even this same faction-overpowered-and-underpowered-at-the-same-time threads, and if you've seen the effort those of us who've been with EB from the start have put in trying to get it across to people who posted like you that EB is already as balanced as it can be and definitely far more balanced than any other mod, then you would understand why we respond the way we do. It isn't for no reason, or because we're a bunch of unfriendly, stuck-up, snobbish louts who prefer the company of our papyrus scrolls and dusty shelves and tweed coats to real life society. It's because ironically for a historically-grounded forum, newcomers don't learn from past history and the mistakes which their predecessors made. Which, I guess, is why they make the same mistakes, over and over again, with the same responses, predictable to us, but seemingly totally unwarranted to the newcomers.

From Boyar Son: 'Sir, if you had joied a couple months ago you would never want to post another "over powered/underpowered" thread EVER again.'

From you: 'I apologize for my ignorance, but acting like condescending Romans doesn't increase your E-reputation. If you don't want to respond, then don't.'

You responded to a polite post with a lashing out to retaliate against no affront at all, but you also generalised and called by implication all posters here condescending. If Boyar called you 'sir', maybe that's the way he speaks. You're being selfish and judging people by your own standards here. And besides, forums are about responses. People -will- respond in different ways to what you say. It's a risk you took by registering and posting. And if I really wanted to get personal, you called my personal favourite faction condescending too, but that would be being very silly. :P

You're new here, so this is just a heads-up. Don't get me wrong, it's good to see a new face presenting some cogent arguments in a civilised manner, and I welcome you most heartily to the Org. I'm looking forward to seeing you post more on the forums. But don't be so quick to anger. Yup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pezhetairoi

As to why you are on the brink of getting hammered (you aren't yet because we're making the allowance that you're new, if you want to see hammering, go read Rycalawre's threads, now that's hammering) is because you haven't been reading the older threads in the forum and immersing yourself in the culture.

---

Steady on! The Rycalawre thread reflected poorly on a lot of those people who posted in it, and threatening Livius Andronicus with similar treatment... well, it's embarrassing for the rest of us.

I agree with your last paragraph Pez. But all Livius Andronicus did was offer measured criticism of the mod on a historical basis, something that's generally welcomed by the members of the mod team. He seems like a pretty intelligent guy, and he's entitled to object to some of the condescending responses he received. Suggesting that he ought to read months of our postings before contributing himself is an example of what he's objecting to, not a refutation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

Sir, if you have joined months ago, you would've known never to start a flame war with flame war loving people.

---

I mean, come on...

</jeremiah>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrtwisties

Steady on! The Rycalawre thread reflected poorly on a lot of those people who posted in it, and threatening Livius Andronicus with similar treatment... well, it's embarrassing for the rest of us.

I agree with your last paragraph Pez. But all Livius Andronicus did was offer measured criticism of the mod on a historical basis, something that's generally welcomed by the members of the mod team. He seems like a pretty intelligent guy, and he's entitled to object to some of the condescending responses he received. Suggesting that he ought to read months of our postings before contributing himself is an example of what he's objecting to, not a refutation.

---

A fair enough point, fair enough indeed. Perhaps I was a bit too hard on him. But hey, I don't disagree with you, L. Andronicus has made historical points, more importantly, CORRECT historical points. :) But I guess therein lies the difference between him and me, maybe I've been here too long or something, but I've learned to take things not quite so hard, and to discern true condescension with what is essentially harmless Victorian mannerisms, which Boyar's was. Though his later post did provide Andronicus with justification had he wanted it.

And I wasn't threatening Andronicus, at least, I hope I wasn't appearing to be so. I was merely pointing out the stakes involved, because he's shooting himself in the foot had he persisted in going down that path of reasoning.

One thing though, that perhaps you'll agree with me: Andronicus really was quite harsh, overly so. It's like someone going 'ooh, what a nice little kitty!' only to have your petting hand clawed into shreds. Apart from that blip on the radar, I didn't find his attitude at all objectionable. Rather liked it, in fact.

I would object to being -forced- to read for months before I posted, myself. Anyone's free to join and post, but by going public you have to accept some people accidentally toeing the border of your personal space and take it in stride, not lash out at them first time, first thing. It's not very...community-minded. Reading the forum was the only way that came to mind that could minimise such friction if you were the touchy sort.

And I don't think the Rycalawre thread was all that bad, really, had it just stayed at the banning vote and not further on, to the picture thing, which I did not like one bit. I think the banning thing was quite justified, actually, because this guy has made baseless accusations and made an asshole of himself trying to smear EB. Which is terrible considering we have some fervent EB lovers here. I make no apologies for that, because I read every single one of Rycalawre's posts and was responding to them in general, rather than just that one post, though it would already have been quite enough on its own.

Alright, back to topic!

Early Romans are just fine and balanced, I say! Pit them against the Gauls and Makedonians, and heck, you might even say they are -under-powered!

EDIT: You're right, the E-reputation paragraph DID sound pretty harsh. I have excised it, and hope not too many people have read it. But frankly, there isn't a -nice- way of getting the message I had in that paragraph across. You don't challenge a pistol marksman to pistols at ten paces. It's downright foolish. His objections would have had more force and generated less indignation had he not mentioned 'E-reputation'.

Wow...Thanks for all the replies everyone. It has been a pleasure reading your ideas and I think I understand things a little more clearly now.

As I think about the past campaigns that I've played, it does seem that in general the AI is fairly easy to exploit. The difficulties in employing certain moves by an AI led factions make much more sense to me now.

I apologize for coming off a bit aggressively at first as almost an attack on the mod. So far I have enjoyed playing the campaigns and the fact that a human player with the right moves is able to be successful with any of the factions is really an amazing part to this game.

I have been currently reading "The fall of Carthage" by Adrian Goldsworthy. So far it seems, especially in the 2nd Punic War, that Rome easily could have fallen if a few events would have had a different outcome.

From all of your great input I think I will try another Romani campaign and add some house rules. I have seen a few posts about adding house rules to make a campaign a bit more realistic.

Any thoughts on possible house rules for the Romani to recreate the Punic Wars to some degree?

The first that I will employ is sticking to dates as closely as possible. So for instance I will not invade Sicily until 264, etc...

Look, come on people, you are being rediculous. All I can say is I'm damn glad I joined 9months ago, when these boards were always polite and welcoming to new members. Now, I know you all don't mean any harm, but these last few weeks, this forum has been rapidly down hill. If I was a junior member today, I'm not sure I would want to make the effort to learn the petty little grudgies and mannerisms that make the rest of us behave in such a unfriendly fashion.

Cut the poor guy a bit of slack, can't you? If you are the mature, logical, polite characters that you are demanding he be, then you wouldn't have responded to him as you did. Maybe he touched a nerve, well its not his fault, it should be the duty of a long standing member to ease a new chap in as smothly as possible, not all just jump on top of him, when he rases a perfectly vallid question, in polite and reasonable language.

Honestly, get your acts together. Your treatment of Rycalawre was bad, but at least there was a reason for that. If this is how you now treat polite new members, well, I'm disgusted.:no:

No sweat, Andronicus. Great to see you back.

For house rules directed against the Poeni, perhaps you could limit yourself to 20 units in the field at any one time as long as you do not expand beyond Italia. That may help, and perhaps you could also mandate that only 10 could be in the south, in Sicily, while the remaining 10 campaign in the north. Furthermore, if the First Punic is what you had in mind, you could even besiege cities, not build any rams, and conquer Sicily that way. Though that might not actually prove too much challenge unless you manually create units for Carthage in Sicily to oppose yourself. The SSbQ AI does not come across as being remarkably amphibious, even on BI.exe, so it's pretty much cut off as is.

House rules aren't actually meant to make campaigns more realistic, not in all cases anyway. They seem to me to rather be meant to make things more challenging by setting restrictions to slow yourself down. Sorta like savouring good food through small nibbles. As I see it, the only way you're ever going to have any challenge with Carthage is to challenge them in Spain and Africa. No other place will do.

I actually made my Romani campaign more challenging by only winning new settlements by siege for the first 20-30 years. Thus my development was slow while I built my infrastructure, while by the virtue of the money scripts, the neighbouring AI factions would grow faster. The real challenge to the Romani only begins, as I see it, at around 200BC. But even then, no matter how you look at it, the enemy is still more tenacious than challenging.

The dates house rule will put enough on your hands as it is.

More proof Roman Armour is way way way overrated....

:laugh4:

It is not strong.

Manybe you are playing on Easy or Medium battle setting.

It is miserably balanced and not that strong before Marian Reform!!:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commilitone

Manybe you are playing on Easy or Medium battle setting.

---

er... Medium is the recommended battle difficulty setting :whip:
On Hard and VH the AI will get stat bonuses so your units won't be as effective

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blank

er... Medium is the recommended battle difficulty setting :whip:
On Hard and VH the AI will get stat bonuses so your units won't be as effective

---

Medium is "RECOMMENDED" battle difficulty setting, but actually Medium is easy.

Think about it.

Players of course use more strategies than AI and how to use terrain better than AI does. Also Veteran players know some "tricks" or "techniques" to win a battle easily.

If you sum those factors up, actually choosing "Hard" difficulty is appropriate setting for EB battle campaigns.

The problem with "Hard" is that it reduces the historical accuracy of the battle simulation. Let's face it, beating the AI is never going to be an impressive achievement. That's why most of us are just role-playing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commilitone

Medium is "RECOMMENDED" battle difficulty setting, but actually Medium is easy.

Think about it.

Players of course use more strategies than AI and how to use terrain better than AI does. Also Veteran players know some "tricks" or "techniques" to win a battle easily.

If you sum those factors up, actually choosing "Hard" difficulty is appropriate setting for EB battle campaigns.

---

Agreed. Medium is far too easy, and the bonuses of very hard make it too unrealistic. Hard is the perfect balance.

Yes, hard/hard with fatigue off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Livius Andronicus

From all of your great input I think I will try another Romani campaign and add some house rules. I have seen a few posts about adding house rules to make a campaign a bit more realistic.

Any thoughts on possible house rules for the Romani to recreate the Punic Wars to some degree?

---

Try very hard to lose battles or don't build an army :P

Seriously the AI is pathetic, you cannot get a challenge out of it unless playing some hopeless faction like Hayasdan, or possibly if you play on Very Hard battle difficulty, which is not a recommended setting for the mod as it makes battles very bizzare, with slingers beating legionaries in melee and that sort of thing.

I forget which setting my battles are on, but I have a hard time fighting the Carthagian African Elite Pikemen. Sicily has been switching back and forth for years now. I think I'm medium campaign and either hard or very hard for battles.

I started with med/med and learned what I could about the game. The first campaign I played with 1.0 was set on vh/vh and I am having to fight a 3 front war and battles are not as one sided as they were on med. I am also loosing some troops from bribes which almost never happened with the med setting.:egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commilitone

Medium is "RECOMMENDED" battle difficulty setting, but actually Medium is easy.

Think about it.

Players of course use more strategies than AI and how to use terrain better than AI does. Also Veteran players know some "tricks" or "techniques" to win a battle easily.

If you sum those factors up, actually choosing "Hard" difficulty is appropriate setting for EB battle campaigns.

---

Medium is recommended for a reason, you know. The unit stats are made for that difficulty level, meaning that it's how the units perform in medium difficulty that's interesting.

So your argument that "it's not too strong on hard difficulty" is kind of worthless, and how a player uses unit X better than the AI is irrelevant to the question of whether that unit is over- or underpowered.

I'm playing Hayasdan, fighting Pontos, Ptolies, and Seleukids all at once -- all three stack spamming me each turn. If I survive (even at medium battle difficulty), well, I'll feel quite an achievement. And I think the sauromatae are eyeing my northing cities too... ugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Livius Andronicus

I have been currently reading "The fall of Carthage" by Adrian Goldsworthy. So far it seems, especially in the 2nd Punic War, that Rome easily could have fallen if a few events would have had a different outcome.

---

I disagree. In terms of manpower and resources, Rome had a large advantage at the time of the First Punic War; during the Second, a Carthie victory would have been a major miracle. Hannibal gave the Senatus Populusque Romanus a good scare, but really, for all the losses he caused them, they had replacements aplenty without even recalling the armies sent to other fronts. There's always the numismatic argument, but then, if we look at the other major Mediterranean powers, they were also devaluing their currencies at about the same time, so we can assume that the value of precious metals was declining throughout the Mediterranean bassin. This may have had something to do with the fact that Rome and Carthage weren't the only powers to be engaged in a heated war at the time; but nevertheless it is a Mediterranean-wide phenomenon, and if it did help the SPQR pay for more troops, it was hardly a desperate measure, since Roman money wasn't trashed and the Roman economy wasn't imperiled by a financial crisis.

Hannibal failed to really shake Roman hegemony in Italy, despite all his political genius. His only chance would have been to take the Urbs herself by storm, but that would have been dicey at best.

Well, yeah, the stats may, or may not be a few points off, but in general they're alot more balanced then in RTR, Principe's have 32 def, compared to Hastati, which have 27, compared to Sctutarii which have 21.

Rome is pretty overpowered in almost all mods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olaf The Great

Rome is pretty overpowered in almost all mods.

---

Yeah, even in the RL-mod they were overpowered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrtwisties

I mean, come on...

---

whhyy do you make it your business?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmehrer07

Don't forget about the Battle of Arausio in 105 B.C. The Romans got their asses handed to them by the Cimbri and the Teutones.

---

mhm and Rome learned how to stop worrying and love the bomb...lol
now, 3 years later Marius wiped out these two Germanic tribes consisting of about 400.000 people at Aqua Sextiae (102BC) and Vercellae (101BC) suffering less than marginal losses. Now, that's getting your asses handed...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

whhyy do you make it your business?

---

That particular debate is over, friend. Don't restart it. Posting on the forums makes your post everyone's business so there's nothing wrong with mrtwisties. He's entitled to his opinion. Let the matter rest. Besides, what you said was just plain embarrassing to the rest of us, too. Maybe you like flame wars (though I sincerely hope you don't), but you've sorely misread us if you think we like flame wars too. Don't start one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delablake

mhm and Rome learned how to stop worrying and love the bomb...lol
now, 3 years later Marius wiped out these two Germanic tribes consisting of about 400.000 people at Aqua Sextiae (102BC) and Vercellae (101BC) suffering less than marginal losses. Now, that's getting your asses handed...

---

The tribes had splitted, and it would be interesting to know the actual fighting numbers of the tribes in those battles.

Considering they were entire tribes on the move, a large amount of the people would be women, children, elderly or men unfit to fight I'd reckon, AND the rest would be men with no professional training or good, uniform armours, who then get pitted against 40 000 - 50 000 legionnaries & auxilia, led by none other than Gaius Marius himself.

And, of course, attacking the opponent before they were ready at Vercellae did kind of help. Naturally, there's no need to follow the honour codes of the "barbarians", but it does take quite a bit of the glory away from the victory.